Social contract, or theft?

Leftists sometimes "argue" for taxation by using the term "social contract". Democracy gets the same treatment.

But here's a nice little quote that puts things in perspective:

Suppose five robbers break into the home of a family of four. As the robbers are about to leave with the owners’ possessions, the owners object, on the grounds of private property rights. The criminals, being of a philosophical bent, are willing to engage in dialogue with their victims. Under the influence of Pipes, they are willing to hold a democratic referendum on the issue of whether or not it is justified for them to "take" the family’s household goods. The vote proves conclusive: five in favor (the thieves) and four against (the family members.) Would it make any difference if thereupon the gang stated that it was their intention to distribute their ill-gotten gains to the poor, and thus their motives were "benevolent"? Not at all. Theft is theft, and there need be no benevolence to it at all. (#)

I guess the "social contract" and democracy theory would say this: The family memebers in question happened to be in the same geographical are as the thieves, and have the bad luck of storing their the property in this area. When a number of voters greater than that of the property owners invaded the property, all discussions about who owns what and why came down to a vote, and like with democracy the winner takes all. Is that fair or just or just plain theft?

A few good reads on climate changes and related issues

"The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has just put the polar bear on the endangered species list because it is supposedly "facing extinction" -- mainly, it claims, as a result of global warming. But statistics show the polar bear is not facing extinction, not by a long shot."
The Bear Facts (TCS Daily)

"The money is in global warming because it’s being pushed by a political agenda that wants power. Power in Washington. Power on the international stage. Power over economic development. Power over international monetary decisions. Power over energy. In short, power over the motor of the world. It’s driven by literally thousands of large and small non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sanctioned by the United Nations, and implemented by a horde of bureaucrats, university academics and an ignorant but pliable news media."
Global Warming: The Other Side of the Story (Capitalism Magazine)

"In the end, a relentless campaign to extend political control over the world’s energy use is likely to fail, in part because, even if severe climate change is in our future, most people intuitively recognize that rhetoric about “the end of civilization as we know it” is inconsistent with human experience. Our distant ancestors survived an ice age with little more than animal skins, crude tools, and open fire pits. For all the talk of science and progress, the global-warming alarmists betray an astonishing lack of confidence in human creativity and resiliency. It’s almost as if the scientific community had abandoned the idea of evolution."
Acclimatizing: How to Think Sensibly, or Ridiculously, about Global Warming (AEI)

Red or green, or does it matter?

I can't resist posting this beautiful paragraph. Seperation of it into smaller sections is mine:

"In my judgment, the "green" movement of the environmentalists is merely the old "red" movement of the communists and socialists shorn of its veneer of science. The only difference I see between the greens and the reds is the superficial one of the specific reasons for which they want to violate individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The reds claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as "exploitation" and "monopoly." The greens claim that the individual cannot be left free because the result will be such things as destruction of the ozone layer and global warming.

Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity. The greens want it for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage.

In my view, environmentalism and ecology are nothing but the intellectual death rattle of socialism in the West, the final convulsion of a movement that only a few decades ago eagerly looked forward to the results of paralyzing the actions of individuals by means of "social engineering" and now seeks to paralyze the actions of individuals by means of prohibiting engineering of any kind.

The greens, I think, may be a cut below the reds, if that is possible."
- George Reisman, The Toxicity of Environmentalism

Dissection of: Unions

Unions are probably one of the most over-estimated inventions ever. They are credited for improved working conditions, for higher wages of workers and a general rise in living standards. The fact is that the opposite is true. Living standards, higher wages of workers and improved working conditions are not the result of the hard work of unions, but something that has been accomplished despite the presence of unions. A simple dissection of unions now follows:

Unions gather workers of a particular company, industry - even country - together as a single negotiator of salaries and benefits. In most cases they use force - sometimes politicians and their law and police - to force employers to raise wages and benefits for a large number of workers.

The employers respond to the extra expenses by reducing the number of available jobs, changing the way they attract new workers (from offering different wages and benefits to different individuals, to offering the same base-level package for all), and hold back on all increase in benefits and wage during times of huge profits, knowing that they will only have to pay up when the next strike is threatened.

This reduces the overall competition among employers for new employees and reduces the number of available jobs, which in turn reduces the incentive (good) employees have to change jobs or ask for higher wages on an individual basis.

The reduced number of jobs, reduced competition among employers for employees and among employees for available jobs boils down to one thing: Fewer opportunities at a higher price. This will not harm those who are protected behind law-protected unions, but everyone else will hurt, and society as a whole will suffer the greatest loss with a (relative) reduction in productivity and less flexibility in all areas.

Unions today have mostly lost their status in the free societies. That is why they now turn their eyes towards the developing world, asking for "fair trade" instead of free trade, and pressure politicians and ask consumers to punish those employers who employ people but don't follow the guidelines suggested by rich Western union leaders.

What is a crime?

I recently had an interesting discussion about what should be considered a crime and what not. Lies - should they be illegal? I say no. What about fraud? I say yes. There is a significant difference in nature between a lie and fraud. If I call myself the most attractive, well-spoken man in the world, I could be telling a lie, and sure enough that would be easy to prove to some chosen jury of 12 people. But I have committed no crime. If I tell everyone my neighbor is a child-molester I have committed no crime although I could not back up my case with evidence. At best I have injured my own reputation among those who heard my accusations, asked for evidence and received none.

A thought worthy quote:

If I take but a single cent of a man's property, without his consent, the act is a crime. But if two men, who are compos mentis, possessed of reasonable discretion to judge of the nature and probable results of their act, sit down together, and each voluntarily stakes his money against the money of another, on the turn of a die, and one of them loses his whole estate (however large that may be), it is no crime, but only a vice. (#)

If there is any role for man-made laws, created by a man-made State, then it is to protect individuals from physical attacks and theft or manipulation of their physical property. A lie does not fall within these borders. A moral or ethical code of law has no place within the State-apparatus. If I tell you that a house is safe and you move into it without any further checking of its structural capacity, and the house falls to the ground one week later, I committed no crime. But if I bribe a house-inspector to give the house the thumbs up, and sell the house on the notion that it has been checked for faults against collapse, then the simple lie turns into fraud, and a crime has emerged. Yes, even if the house does stay up.

Gold

This is a wonderful little lecture by Walter Block, "Mr. Libertarian". The lecture is about the free-market gold standard, as opposed to the State-run central banking system, and makes a convincing case for the gold standard (or silver, for that matter).

State-supervised central banking is the "norm" in our minds, but a norm that should be disposed of. Central banking is a State-instrument to enable the State to spend more money than it can collect with taxes, creating inflation and sending wrong signals to borrowers and lenders of money (details on that issue). The sooner this can be made clear, the better.

Morally legalized theft

The following words are from this memo by Rothbard (some quotation marks omitted to clarify the text outside its full context):

Here is one example of centralized governmental operation: Paul wants some of Peter's property. For morel as well as legal reasons, Paul is unable personally to accomplish this desire. Paul therefore persuades the government to tax Peter in order to provide funds with which the government pays Paul a 'subsidy.' Paul now has what he wanted. His conscience is clear and he has proceeded 'according to law'.

The fact that there are millions of Pauls and Peters involved in such transactions does not change their essential and common characteristic. The Pauls have simply engaged the government to do for them that which they were unable to do for themselves. Had the Pauls done this individually and directly without the help of the government each of them would have been subject to fine and imprisonment. Furthermore, ninety-five percent of the Paula would have refused to do the job because the moral conscience of each Paul wou1d have hurt him if he did. However, where government does it for them, there is no prosecution and no pain in anybody's conscience. This encourages the unfortunate impression that by using the ballot instead of a blackjack we may take whatever we please to take from our neighbors.

What would happen to them in a free society?

An un-countable number of organizations fight the State every day to gain rights, funds or protection. These organizations are as diverse as they are many, and each of them has an agenda that must be sold to the politicians, for example those fighting for gay-rights, labor protection, gender equality, farm subsidies, abolishment of racial discrimination and so on and so forth. But what would happen to these organizations in a free society? The answer is short: They would shrink or disappear completely.

This is not a hard riddle to solve. The free society cares for one thing and one thing only: The freedom to use ones own body and property as ones sees fit. This will usually translate into a search for an increase in ones own physical well-being and/or an increase in ones property and material wealth. Companies want growth and higher profits, and if that means hiring a black or homosexual man, a man in a wheel-cheer or a man with a vagina then so be it, as long as the hired individual is a profitable employee.

The scenery today is somewhat different from that of a free society. A number of laws offer protection and privileges to certain groups relative to others. If a female employee becomes pregnant, she will drop out of work for several months but still receive pay. If a black man is hired and then fired, the company could face expensive law-suits and other expenses as a result. If a homosexual individual gets a job and finds out he didn't do as good in the salary-discussion as the next non-homosexual man, he will file a lawsuit and claim damages without much effort. The whole spectrum of "anti-discrimination" laws and "equal pay for same job-titles" propaganda has shifted the focus away from the individuals in question and towards some vague definitions of minority groups that have homogeneous individuals among them, apparently with the same needs, desires and talent.

The fact of the matter is that discrimination takes place, but in nature not on the basis of gender, race or number of legs. Discrimination takes place whenever two compete for something. The one who gets the job will usually be the one who can convince his would-be employer that he is the one for the job because of skills, talent, education or ability to work overtime and during weekends. If a statistic shows that one group, on the average, receives higher pay than another, it should not be taken as a reason to make new laws. It should encourage those who think they are under-paid to convince their employer of exactly that, and that is all.

Special-interest organizations in a free society would find better things to do with their time than sue the State and demand laws that apply for all individuals, regardless of individual preferences, talent, wants and needs.

Labor unions

A small quote to honor this day of the working man:

Labor unions do not even know how to raise real wages. All they are concerned with is raising the money wages and protecting the jobs of the members of their particular union. Since labor unions do not control the quantity of money or volume of spending in the economic system, the only way that they can raise the money wages of their members is by artificially reducing the supply of labor in their field. But the effect of this is to correspondingly increase the supply of labor and reduce wage rates in other fields. In other words the success of any given union is obtained at the expense of the loss of wage earners in the rest of the economic system. And the losses necessarily outweigh the gains, because an essential aspect of the process is workers being forced into jobs requiring less skill and ability than the jobs from which they are expelled. (#)

The French protests are the ultimate culmination of the power of the labor unions. All law protecting strikes and union power should be abolished immediately. No-one would miss them in the not-so-long long-run. No-one.

A good point, based on a misunderstanding

Sometimes the Left hits the spot, but normally it happens for the wrong reasons. Logic and reason don't bring out the logical and reasonable from the Left. Slogans and misunderstanding does - sometimes.

An Icelandic Leftist-site, Murinn.is, is the star of the Icelandic Leftist-weblogs. Today, an attempt is made to disregard the whole free market-philosophy because some supporters of the free market talk about investments as something that the nation or country does, rather than an individual or certain groups of them.

If economists really believed in the invisible hand, they would never advise any man on the issue of economics, let alone practice economy-management. It hardly suits the idea about the laws of the jungle to practice while being subject to constant interference and social healing in order to maintain economic growth [..] instead of letting the laws work [uninterrupted] and watch their course.

The point is valid - there is of course no such thing as the "nation" investing, buying and selling. Individuals buy and sell, and pointing that out is only good.

But of course the valid point is not sprung from a solid ground of logic and reason. The author claims the "laws of the jungle" are what identifies the free market, and that just like David Attenborough watches lions eat zebras, free market economists should simply sit by and watch the rich eat the poor (or I assume that's to be read between the lines).

The free market is not the laws of the jungle. On thee contrary,

The truth is that economic competition is the very opposite of competition in the animal kingdom. First of all, it is not a competition in the grabbing off of scarce nature-given supplies, as it is in the animal kingdom. Rather, it is a competition in the positive creation of new and additional wealth. Unlike the lions in the jungle, who must compete for a limited supply of nature-given necessities, such as zebras and other game animals, which they have no power to enlarge, competition among business firms is competition in the creation of new and improved products and more efficient methods of production. ...

As the result of its basic nature, so far from being a process of survival of the fittest, economic competition is the foundation of the survival of practically everyone, including those who from a purely biological point of view are not at all very "fit."...

Furthermore, as Ricardo and von Mises have shown, because of the law of comparative advantage there is room for all in the competition of a capitalist society, including those whose productive abilities are modest in every respect.

It would seem strange to believe otherwise. Those who oppose the free market and follow the doctrine of wealth-distribution act very much in accordance with the laws of the jungle. Wealth that is created by one and, with State-coercion, is distributed to another tends to shrink with time. This is no mystery or hidden secret. But the Left will continue to distribute until all wealth runs out, just like a fox (giving the opportunity) will continue to kill chicken until there is no more (although the fox will have the good sense to bury his gain for harder times).

So yes, economists should renew their knowledge in the Austrian-style economics and discuss the different acts of different parties on the free market from an individual perspective. Nations don't buy or sell. Individuals do, although they usually carry passports that state some nationality or another of its holder.

The warming of a debate

A clever remark about the debate of global warming:

In an age where many of us believe that science has all the answers, while others believe that religion has all the answers, a clever mixture of science and religion can be very powerful. (#)

Greenie Watch gets the credit for the hat tip.

And why this extreme passion around the issue of (possible) human-induced effects on the Earth's climate? It has been demonstrated that fighting the real or imagined human-induced climate changes is not only an extremely expensive and impoverishing act, but also as close to hopeless as possible. Put in another perspective, by fighting climate change by punishing humans for their lifestyles will create poverty (or stop enrichment) and change nothing for the Earth's climate. And since this is the case (and the Warmers don't refute this as much as they try to create panic), why not use the resources on something a little more constructive? Drilling holes for water and pumping money into the HIV- and malaria-campaign are obvious examples. Why not shift the focus from something vague and mysterious to something that kills people every day? Why this passion for the climate change-debate?

One could present a theory to explain this complete lack of perspective: By fighting malaria, thirst and hunger, one does not gain political influence in the rich West. The Red Cross and Amnesty International don't promote politicians. The institutes promoting the human cruelty towards Earth's climate do. The Warmers can beg for money and influence to "prove" that humanity is sending humanity into the Global Warm-age (or Ice-age, depending on the decade we look at). The politicians can say that they understand that "action" is needed, and "action" does, of course, mean increased tax-funding to those who shout the loudest.

But of course this is just a theory. Who knows why global warming, out of all the real or unreal problems of the world, receives this attention, let alone political attention.

A necessary reminder

The Third Industrial Revolution is a nice little article about the changes that will increasingly come about with the (ever-going) globalization-process. Things are put into perspective in language that could even be fit for the average newspaper-reader (who seldom wants to see the big picture and is more obsessed with who writes, rather than what is written). Two quotes about the same phenomena - wages versus productivity, or, job-creation versus job-protection:

Moreover, the New Deal and Fair Deal introduced labor legislation that hastened the expansion of the service industry. It enabled and encouraged industrial labor unions to raise the cost of labor above its productivity, which has given rise to an unnatural economic phenomenon: mass unemployment. Unemployed factory labor has been seeking productive employment in the service industry ever since; it functions like a large net, legal and illegal, that can put all willing labor to productive use.

The forces of political intervention, in order to shield and benefit labor, are likely to increase labor costs, which invariably causes unemployment. After all, every penny of labor cost that exceeds labor productivity is bound to create unemployment.

This is saying it in human language that even the Left can understand (or can it ever?).

The French protests clarify the picture. Last fall, thousands of desperate immigrant-descendant young people filled the streets of France, protesting an impossible unemployment-rate that hits those the hardest who have the least skills, training and experience (in short, young immigrants). This spring, thousands of well-educated native-French people are protesting a decreased law-enforced job-protection. Two sides of the same coin. Both sides are unhappy. The rulers loose votes on both events. Artificial job-security, and its partner in crime - huge unemployment, fight with car-torching and violence. Who's the villain? Hardly Villepin.

A friendly reminder to the Left:

If A thinks that the "impersonal market" is not paying him enough, he is really saying that individuals B, C, and D are not willing to pay him as much as he would like to receive. The "market" is individuals acting. Similarly, if B thinks that the "market" is not paying A enough, B is perfectly free to step in and supply the difference. (#)

And wouldn't that be a peaceful solution to the "injustice" of free trade and capitalism?

Positive Liberty.. to steal?

Icelandic Leftists have, for the past few months, worked hard to push the false term "Positive Liberty" into the daily discussion. Wiki defines:

Positive liberty is often described as freedom to achieve certain ends, ...

Its counterpart, Negative Liberty, is, of course, the

individual's liberty from being subjected to the authority of others.

Clearly these two are opposites. The positivist defines his "liberty" as the right to certain products or services, even if it means forcing others to give up their rightful property and the labor of their bodies.

Positive Liberty is in other words the freedom to steal. There is no way around it. If my "liberty" is about access to material goods produced by others, and to be given to me through the tax-system or some other police-enforced system, then my liberty boils down to the "right" to steal.

The sales' speech of those supporting this false notion of liberty takes on many forms. A few that have popped up in the Icelandic debate are,

1. "Positive liberty aims on giving people freedom from the oppression of the consumerism and the capitalists, but those aspects limit the individual; the liberty to use ones talents as best as possible for the sake of the society as a whole; the liberty to be an active participant in the debate and a voice to be reckoned with no matter who you are and where you come from." (expired link)
2. "And surely [the liberty to be free from coercion] is important like the libertarians say. "The freedom to something" is, however, also important. To reach this kind of freedom, the society must be governed according to the ideals of the Left or else we have inequality of wealth where some are doomed to poverty. Those who are so unfortunate have, truth be told, no liberty to many things the mind desires. The reason is their financial incompetence, which stops them from fulfilling their dreams." (#)
3. "Liberty, in part, is about access to material goods." (#)

Now, I'll be the first to admit that the whole political philosophy in the Icelandic debate is not an a very advanced level. It is more or less about shouting the fanciest slogans and excite the public. That's why the quotes above are a relatively easy target for the supporter of absolute (negative) liberty. Liberty, says the positivist, is about giving the Left the power of the individual's property, so it can be divided among those who are not the owners of the property, or in short: The old communist ideal reborn, while the Cold War corpse has hardly cooled down.

This positivism is hard to fight. It takes three words to say, "Divide the wealth", and receive applause and praises. It takes a little more to explain the death and destruction that follows this mentality, and describe the impracticality and ruthless lack of justice that it carries with it. But the battle must be fought. The Left's obsession with other people's money must be ended, one way or another.

Thank you for proving libertarianism!

By reading exactly this sentence you have proved a whole branch of the political philosophy spectrum: The Austrian praxeological approach on human action and economics. If you stop now, you prove it no less than if you continue reading. And isn't that just beautiful?

Are you still reading? Good for you. How did you just prove a whole political philosophy by reading a single paragraph (or not)? Because by doing so (or not), you chose a certain action, decided you use your time, available to you because you own your own body, on something rather than something else. No-one has a pistol pointed towards you and is forcing you to read (or skip it). No-one forced you to read or not read. You chose, you acted, and thereby you prove that you are an individual, have values, a time-preference (you do one thing rather than another because you choose it), and that's pretty much all there is to say about it.

If you doubt that you chose to read this, are an individual or did something as an individual rather than as a part of "society" or "the public", then read this (wont take more than 15-25 minutes and could change the way you look at everything forever). Heck, read it no matter if you believe you prove a whole system of thought or not. It will do you good (according to my value-scale).

Expecting a documentary? Expect something else

Michael Moore is a funny man. So funny in fact that he can make fun of horrible things and receive millions of dollars, prizes and applause in return. Now he is working on a "documentary" about the American health care system. He is asking people to turn themselves in to talk about their grief with the system. His sales' speech in his own words:

Have you ever found yourself getting ready to file for bankruptcy because you can't pay your kid's hospital bill, and then you say to yourself, "Boy, I sure would like to be in Michael Moore's health care movie!"?

Or, after being turned down for the third time by your HMO for an operation they should be paying for, do you ever think to yourself, "Now THIS travesty should be in that 'Sicko' movie!"?

Or maybe you've just been told that your father is going to have to just, well, die because he can't afford the drugs he needs to get better – and it's then that you say, "Damn, what did I do with Michael Moore's home number?!"

Of course there is nothing wrong with what he's doing. He is creating a movie that will describe the way Michael Moore feels about the American health care system. He is a socialist, he wants to nationalize the health care system and he is making a movie to make that point. Everyone knows this. No-one really looks at his work as a document of something like for example the wild life documentaries on the National Geographic channel - not anymore. Michael Moore uses his extensive network and popular website to draw out a few of the few who have a beef with their health care system and have, for some reason or another, received poor medical care.

But this should not cloud people's minds more than necessary. The fact is that the American health care system is the biggest health care money machine in the world, the heart and soul of all medical research in the world, the ground from which most of the latest and drugs and medical treatments grow in, and, all things considered even, an excellent provider of excellent health care.

Of course there are faults in the system. They are many and grave. But the big picture prevails despite of them. Michael Moore wants to nationalize the health care system, and use his wittiness, millions of dollars and video recorders to make that point. Good for him. But thats just about all thats good about his cause.

Division of labor

The concept of the division of labor is a fundamental one in economics. Leftists despise it of course, but that's for obvious reasons: They don't understand the actions of man. When a headline states that Outsourcing is a win win proposition it is not just stating a result of an experience - it is stating a logical conclusion which results from the division of labor. Or in the words of Mises (bold is my doing:

If, through his superiority to B, A needs three hours' labor for the production of one unit of commodity p compared with B's five, and for the production of commodity q two hours against B's four, then A will gain if he confines his labor to producing q and leaves B to produce p. If each gives sixty hours to producing both p and q, the result of A's labor is 20p + 30q, of B's 12p + 15q, and for both together 32p + 45q. If however, A confines himself to producing q alone he produces sixty units in 120 hours, whilst B, if he confines himself to producing p, produces in the same time twenty-four units. The result of the activity is then 24p + 60q, which, as p has for A a substitution value of 3 : 2q and for B one of 5 : 4q, signifies a larger production than 32p + 45q. Therefore it is obvious that every expansion of the personal division of labor brings advantages to all who take part in it.

It takes a certain kind of human mind to deny the participants in the economy the full freedom to participate in a completely open and restriction-free market of theoretically indefinite division of labor. This certain kind of mind is a one that focuses on public popularity, voters, personal gain and power, but not on welfare and wealth increase, improvements in lives and personal liberty. Socialism is the name, death and destruction is the game.

The Leftist's dilemma

Being a Leftist in a free market-society is a tricky thing. In order to be a successful one (that is, a one that collects a lot of votes) you need a few things to be in place:

1. You need the filthy rich to talk bad about.
2. You need a big group of average- or low-paid people to envy the filthy rich.
3. You need the money of the filthy rich to spend on your favorite groups of voters.
4. You need to tax just enough to squeeze on the filthy rich, but not too much so you don't scare them away to other countries or reduce the incentive to become rich too much.

So basically, you need a society where you can actually become rich (or not low-paid), and design the tax-code in such a way that keeps the rich within your taxing grips. This means you can not create a full scheme of redistribution because although that would guarantee a big share of the votes from the low-income voters, it would also leave you without the rich to tax for the "benefit" of the poor.

So basically, in order to keep face as a Leftist, you need to be a capitalist in practice, but a socialist in speech. And isn't that a double-moral that would keep any honest man awake at night?

Irony of statism

It is ironic that those who are the biggest demonstrators against non-Clintonian wars are also those who are the biggest fans of the State. Only governments go to wars. Only States think they have an interest in sub-doing the rulers of other States. Somehow, the Left misses that point.

Free trade progresses

Google News search: "free trade" is becoming one of my favorite websites. It is encouraging to see the scores of countries offering and accepting free-trade agreements with each other while the WTO gradually falls victim to protests, paperwork and bureaucracy (mostly from the European Union and not helped by the USA). Or perhaps that's a good thing, because it distracts the Leftists from the bi-lateral and regional free-trade agreements (actually being made) and puts their focus on the WTO, where progress is slow at best and few hope for improvements.

Two good ones from Rothbard

The Mantle of Science by Murray N. Rothbard is a must read for anyone who wants to see the public debate in another perspective. Two catchy quotes:

[N]ext time someone preaches the priority of "public good" over the individual good, we must ask: Who is the "public" in this case?

Obvious answer: Some small but noisy favorite group of the politician speaking.

[I]f B thinks that the "market" is not paying A enough, B is perfectly free to step in and supply the difference. He is not blocked in this effort by some monster named "market."

Despite this, the Left usually wants the State for force the average man to pay for its demands. Immoral at best.